Chapter 8

Did Humans Really Evolve from Apelike Creatures?

Perhaps the most bitter pill to swallow for any Christian who attempts
to “make peace” with Darwin is the presumed ape ancestry of man.
Even many Christians who uncritically accept evolution as “God’s way of
creating” try to somehow elevate the origin of man, or at least his soul, above
that of the beasts. Evolutionists attempt to soften the blow by assuring us
that man didn’t exactly evolve from apes (tailless monkeys) but rather from
apelike creatures. This is mere semantics, however, as many of the presumed
apelike ancestors of man are apes and have scientific names, which include
the word pithecus (derived from the Greek meaning “ape”). The much-touted
“human ancestor” commonly known as “Lucy,” for example, has the scientific
name Australopithecus afarensis (meaning “southern ape from the Afar
triangle of Ethiopia”). But what does the Bible say about the origin of man,
and what exactly is the scientific evidence that evolutionists claim for our ape
ancestry?

Biblical Starting Assumptions

God tells us that on the same day He made all animals that walk on the
earth (the sixth day), He created man separately in His own image with the
intent that man would have dominion over every other living thing on earth
(Genesis 1:26–28). From this it is clear that there is no animal that is man’s
equal, and certainly none his ancestor.

Thus, when God paraded the animals by Adam for him to name, He
observed that “for Adam there was not found an help meet for him” (Genesis 2:20).
Jesus confirmed this uniqueness of men and women when He declared
that marriage is to be between a man and a woman because “from the beginning
of the creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6). This
leaves no room for prehumans or for billions of years of cosmic evolution
prior to man’s appearance on the earth. Adam chose the very name “Eve” for
his wife because he recognized that she would be “the mother of all living”
(Genesis 3:20). The apostle Paul stated clearly that man is not an animal: “All
flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh
of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds” (1 Corinthians 15:39).

Evolutionary Starting Assumptions

The only permissible question is, “From which apes did man evolve?”

While Bible-believing Christians begin with the assumption that God’s
Word is true and that man’s ancestry goes back only to a fully human Adam
and Eve, evolutionists begin with the assumption that man has, in fact, evolved
from apes. No paleoanthropologists (those who study the fossil evidence for
man’s origin) would dare to seriously raise the question, “Did man evolve from
apes?” The only permissible question is, “From which apes did man evolve?”

Since evolutionists generally do not believe that man evolved from any
ape that is now living, they look to fossils of humans and apes to provide
them with their desired evidence. Specifically, they look for any anatomical
feature that looks “intermediate” (between that of apes and man). Fossil apes
having such features are declared to be ancestral to man (or at least collateral
relatives) and are called hominids. Living apes, on the other hand, are not considered
to be hominids, but rather are called hominoids because they are only
similar to humans but did not evolve into them. Nonetheless, evolutionists
are willing to accept mere similarities between the fossilized bones of extinct
apes and the bones of living men as “proof ” of our ape ancestry.

What Is the Evidence for Human Evolution?

Though many similarities may be cited between living apes and humans,
the only historical evidence that could support the ape ancestry of man must
come from fossils. Unfortunately, the fossil record of man and apes is very
sparse. Approximately 95 percent of all known fossils are marine invertebrates,
about 4.7 percent are algae and plants, about 0.2 percent are insects
and other invertebrates, and only about 0.1 percent are vertebrates (animals
with bones). Finally, only the smallest imaginable fraction of vertebrate fossils
consists of primates (humans, apes, monkeys, and lemurs).

Because of the rarity of fossil hominids, even many of those who specialize
in the evolution of man have never actually seen an original hominid
fossil, and far fewer have ever had the opportunity to handle or study
one. Most scientific papers on human evolution are based on casts of original
specimens (or even on published photos, measurements, and descriptions of
them). Access to original fossil hominids is strictly limited by those who discovered
them and is often confined to a few favored evolutionists who agree
with the discoverers’ interpretation of the fossil.

Since there is much more prestige in finding an ancestor of man than an
ancestor of living apes (or worse yet, merely an extinct ape), there is immense
pressure on paleoanthropologists to declare almost any ape fossil to be a
“hominid.” As a result, the living apes have pretty much been left to find
their own ancestors.

Many students in our schools are taught human evolution (often in the
social studies class!) by teachers having little knowledge of human anatomy,
to say nothing of ape anatomy. But it is useless to consider the fossil evidence
for the evolution of man from apes without first understanding the basic anatomical
and functional differences between human and ape skeletons.

Jaws and Teeth

Because of their relative hardness, teeth and jaw fragments are the most
frequently found primate fossils. Thus, much of the evidence for the ape
ancestry of man is based on similarities of teeth and jaws.

In contrast to man, apes tend to have incisor and canine teeth that
are relatively larger than their molars. Ape teeth usually have thin enamel
(the hardest surface layer of the tooth), while humans generally have thicker
enamel. Finally, the jaws tend to be more U-shaped in apes and more parabolic
in man.

The problem in declaring a fossil ape to be a human ancestor (i.e., a
hominid) on the basis of certain humanlike features of the teeth is that some
living apes have these same features and they are not considered to be ancestors
of man. Some species of modern baboons, for example, have relatively
small canines and incisors and relatively large molars. While most apes do
have thin enamel, some apes, such as the orangutans, have relatively thick
enamel. Clearly, teeth tell us more about an animal’s diet and feeding habits
than its supposed evolution. Nonetheless, thick enamel is one of the most
commonly cited criteria for declaring an ape fossil to be a hominid.

Artistic imagination has been
used to illustrate entire “apemen”
from nothing more than a single
tooth. In the early 1920s, the
“apeman” Hesperopithecus (which
consisted of a single tooth) was
pictured in the London Illustrated
News complete with the tooth’s
wife, children, domestic animals,
and cave! Experts used this tooth,
known as “Nebraska man,” as
proof for human evolution during
the Scopes trial in 1925. In 1927,
parts of the skeleton were discovered
together with the teeth, and
Nebraska man was found to really be an extinct peccary (wild pig)!

Skulls

Orangutan Skull

Human Skull

Skulls are perhaps the most interesting primate fossils because they house
the brain and give us an opportunity, with the help of imaginative artists,
to look our presumed ancestors in the
face. The human skull is easily distinguished
from all living apes, though
there are, of course, similarities.

The vault of the skull is large
in humans because of their relatively
large brain compared to apes. Even so,
the size of the normal adult human
brain varies over nearly a threefold
range. These differences in size in the
human brain do not correlate with
intelligence. Adult apes have brains
that are generally smaller than even the
smallest of adult human brains, and
of course they are not even remotely
comparable in intelligence.

Perhaps the best way to distinguish
an ape skull from a human skull
is to examine it from a side view. From
this perspective, the face of the human
is nearly vertical, while that of the ape
slopes forward from its upper face to
its chin.

From a side view, the bony socket of the eye (the orbit) of an ape is
obscured by its broad, flat upper face. Humans, on the other hand, have a
more curved upper face and forehead, clearly revealing the orbit of the eye
from a side view.

Another distinctive feature of the human skull is the nose bone that our
glasses rest on. Apes do not have protruding nasal bones and would have great
difficulty wearing glasses.

Leg Bones

The most eagerly sought-after evidence in fossil hominids is any anatomical
feature that might suggest bipedality (the ability to walk on two legs).
Since humans walk on two legs, any evidence of bipedality in fossil apes is
considered by evolutionists to be compelling evidence for human ancestry.
But we should bear in mind that the way an ape walks on two legs is entirely
different from the way man walks on two legs. The distinctive human gait
requires the complex integration of many skeletal and muscular features in
our hips, legs, and feet. Thus, evolutionists closely examine the hipbones
(pelvis), thighbones (femur), leg bones
(tibia and fibula), and foot bones of
fossil apes in an effort to detect any anatomical features that might suggest
bipedality.

Evolutionists are particularly interested in the angle at which the femur
and the tibia meet at the knee (called the carrying angle). Humans are able to
keep their weight over their feet while walking because their femurs converge
toward the knees, forming a carrying angle of approximately nine degrees with
the tibia (in other words, we’re sort of knock-kneed). In contrast, chimps and
gorillas have widely separated, straight legs with a carrying angle of essentially
zero degrees. These animals manage to keep their weight over their feet when
walking by swinging their body from side to side in the familiar “ape walk.”

Evolutionists assume that fossil apes with a high carrying angle (humanlike)
were bipedal and thus evolved into man. Certain australopithecines (apelike
creatures) are considered to have walked like us and thus to be our ancestors
largely because they had a high carrying angle. But high carrying angles
are not confined to humans—they are also found on some modern apes that
walk gracefully on tree limbs and only clumsily on the ground.

Living apes with a high carrying angle (values comparable to man)
include such apes as the orangutan and spider monkey—both adept tree
climbers and capable of only an apelike bipedal gait on the ground. The point
is that there are living tree-dwelling apes and monkeys with some of the same
anatomical features that evolutionists consider to be definitive evidence for
bipedality, yet none of these animals walks like man and no one suggests they
are our ancestors or descendants.

Foot Bones

The human foot is unique and not even close to the appearance or function
of the ape foot. The big toe of the human foot is in-line with the foot
and does not jut out to the side like an ape’s. Human toe bones are relatively
straight, rather than curved and grasping like ape toes.

While walking, the heel of the human foot hits the ground first and then
the weight distribution spreads from the heel along the outer margin of the
foot up to the base of the little toe. From the little toe it spreads inward across
the base of the toes and finally pushes off from the big toe. No ape has a foot
or push-off like that of a human, and thus, no ape is capable of walking with
our distinctive human stride or making human footprints.

Hipbones

The pelvis (hipbones) plays a critically important role in walking, and
the characteristic human gait requires a pelvis that is distinctly different from
that of the apes. Indeed, one only has to examine the pelvis to determine if an
ape has the ability to walk like a man.

The part of the hipbones that we can feel just under our belt is called the
iliac blade. Viewed from above, these blades are curved forward like the handles
of a steering yolk on an airplane. The iliac blades of the ape, in contrast,
project straight out to the side like the handlebars of a scooter. It is simply not
possible to walk like a human with an apelike pelvis. On this feature alone
one can easily distinguish apes from humans.

Only Three Ways to Make an “Apeman”

Knowing from Scripture that God didn’t create any apemen, there are
only three ways for the evolutionist to create one:

Combine ape fossil bones with human fossil bones and
declare the two to be one individual—a real “apeman.”

Emphasize certain humanlike qualities of fossilized ape
bones, and with imagination upgrade apes to be more
humanlike.

Emphasize certain apelike qualities of fossilized human
bones, and with imagination downgrade humans to be more
apelike.

These three approaches account for all of the attempts by evolutionists
to fill the unbridgeable gap between apes and men with fossil apemen.

Combining Men and Apes

The most famous example of an apeman proven to be a combination of
ape and human bones is Piltdown man. In 1912, Charles Dawson, a medical
doctor and an amateur paleontologist, discovered a mandible (lower jawbone)
and part of a skull in a gravel pit near Piltdown, England. The jawbone
was apelike, but had teeth that showed wear similar to the human pattern.
The skull, on the other hand, was very humanlike. These two specimens were
combined to form what was called “Dawn man,” which was calculated to be
500,000 years old.

The whole thing turned out to be an elaborate hoax. The skull was
indeed human (about 500 years old), while the jaw was that of a modern
female orangutan whose teeth had been obviously filed to crudely resemble
the human wear pattern. Indeed, the long ape canine tooth was filed down
so far that it exposed the pulp chamber, which was then filled in to hide the
mischief. It would seem that any competent scientist examining this tooth
would have concluded that it was either a hoax or the world’s first root canal!
The success of this hoax for over 50 years, in spite of the careful scrutiny of the
best authorities in the world, led the human evolutionist Sir Solly Zuckerman
to declare: “It is doubtful if there is any science at all in the search for man’s
fossil ancestry.”1

Making Man out of Apes

Many apemen are merely apes that evolutionists have attempted to
upscale to fill the gap between apes and men. These include all the australopithecines,
as well as a host of other extinct apes such as Ardipithecus, Orrorin,
Sahelanthropus, and Kenyanthropus. All have obviously ape skulls, ape pelvises,
and ape hands and feet. Nevertheless, australopithecines (especially Australopithecus
afarensis) are often portrayed as having hands and feet identical to
modern man; a ramrod-straight, upright posture; and a human gait.

The best-known specimen of A. afarensis is the fossil commonly known as
“Lucy.” A life-like mannequin of “Lucy” in the Living World exhibit at the St.
Louis Zoo shows a hairy, humanlike female body with human hands and feet
but with an obviously apelike head. The three-foot-tall Lucy stands erect in a
deeply pensive pose with her right forefinger curled under her chin, her eyes
gazing off into the distance as if she were contemplating the mind of Newton.

Few visitors are aware that this is a gross misrepresentation of what is
known about the fossil ape Australopithecus afarensis. These apes are known
to be long-armed knuckle-walkers with locking wrists. Both the hands and
feet of this creature are clearly apelike. Paleoanthropologists Jack Stern and
Randall Sussman2 have reported that the hands of this species are “surprisingly
similar to hands found in the small end of the pygmy chimpanzee–common chimpanzee range.” They report that the feet, like the hands, are
“long, curved and heavily muscled” much like those of living tree-dwelling
primates. The authors conclude that no living primate has such hands and
feet “for any purpose other than to meet the demands of full or part-time
arboreal (tree-dwelling) life.”

Despite evidence to the contrary, evolutionists and museums continue
to portray Lucy (A. afarensis) with virtually human feet (though some are
finally showing the hands with long, curved fingers).

Making Apes out of Man

In an effort to fill the gap between apes and men, certain fossil men have
been declared to be “apelike” and thus, ancestral to at least “modern” man.
You might say this latter effort seeks to make a “monkey” out of man! Human
fossils that are claimed to be “apemen” are generally classified under the genus
Homo (meaning “man”). These include Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis,
and Homo neanderthalensis.

The story of how Neanderthal man was demoted to an apeman provides much insight into the methods of evolutionists.

The best-known human fossils are of Cro-Magnon man (whose marvelous
paintings are found on the walls of caves in France) and Neanderthal
man. Both are clearly human and have long been classified as Homo sapiens.
In recent years, however, Neanderthal man has been downgraded to a different
species—Homo neanderthalensis. The story of how Neanderthal man
was demoted to an apeman provides much insight into the methods of
evolutionists.

Neanderthal man was first discovered in 1856 by workmen digging in a
limestone cave in the Neander valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. The fossil
bones were examined by an anatomist (Professor Schaafhausen) who concluded
that they were human.

At first, not much attention was given to these finds, but with the publication
of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859, the search began for the imagined
“apelike ancestors” of man. Darwinians argued that Neanderthal man was
an apelike creature, while many critical of Darwin (like the great anatomist
Rudolph Virchow) argued that Neanderthals were human in every respect,
though some appeared to be suffering from rickets or arthritis.

Over 300 Neanderthal specimens have now been found scattered throughout
most of the world, including Belgium, China, Central and North Africa,
Iraq, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Greece, northwestern Europe, and the
Middle East. This group of people was characterized by prominent eyebrow
ridges (like modern Australian Aborigines), a low forehead, a long, narrow
skull, a protruding upper jaw, and a strong lower jaw with a short chin. They
were deep-chested, large-boned individuals with a powerful build. It should
be emphasized, however, that none of these features fall outside the range of
normal human anatomy. Interestingly, the brain size (based on cranial capacity)
of Neanderthal man was actually larger than average for that of modern
man, though this is rarely emphasized.

Most of the misconceptions about Neanderthal man resulted from the
claims of the Frenchman Marcelin Boule who, in 1908, studied two Neanderthal
skeletons that were found in France (LeMoustier and La Chapelle-aux-
Saints). Boule declared Neanderthal men to be anatomically and intellectually
inferior brutes who were more closely related to apes than humans. He
asserted that they had a slumped posture, a “monkey-like” arrangement of
certain spinal vertebrae, and he even claimed that their feet were of a “grasping
type” (like those of gorillas and chimpanzees). Boule concluded that
Neanderthal man could not have walked erectly, but rather must have walked
in a clumsy fashion. These highly biased and inaccurate views prevailed and
were even expanded by many other evolutionists up to the mid-1950s.

In 1957, the anatomists William Straus and A.J. Cave examined one of
the French Neanderthals (La Chapelle-aux-Saints) and determined that the
individual suffered from severe arthritis (as suggested by Virchow nearly 100
years earlier), which had affected the vertebrae and bent the posture. The jaw
also had been affected. These observations are consistent with the Ice Age
climate in which Neanderthals had lived. They may well have sought shelter in
caves, and this, together with poor diet and lack of sunlight, could easily have
led to diseases that affect the bones, such as rickets.

In addition to anatomical evidence, there is a growing body of cultural
evidence for the fully human status of Neanderthals. They buried their dead
and had elaborate funeral customs that included arranging the body and covering
it with flowers. They made a variety of stone tools and worked with
skins and leather. A wood flute was recently discovered among Neanderthal
remains. There is even evidence that suggests that Neanderthals engaged in
medical care. Some Neanderthal specimens show evidence of survival to old
age despite numerous wounds, broken bones, blindness, and disease. This
suggests that these individuals were cared for and nurtured by others who
showed human compassion.

Still, efforts continue to be made to somehow dehumanize Neanderthal
man. Many evolutionists now even insist that Neanderthal man is not even
directly related to modern man because of some differences in a small fragment
of DNA! There is, in fact, nothing about Neanderthals that is in any
way inferior to modern man. One of the world’s foremost authorities on
Neanderthal man, Erik Trinkaus, concludes: “Detailed comparisons of Neandertal
skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there
is nothing in Neandertal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor,
manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern
humans.”3

Conclusion

Why then are there continued efforts to make apes out of man and man
out of apes? In one of the most remarkably frank and candid assessments of
the whole subject and the methodology of paleoanthropology, Dr. David Pilbeam
(a distinguished professor of anthropology) suggested the following:

Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including
myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base
is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories.
Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than
about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans
view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But
that is heresy.4

Oh, that these heretical words were printed as a warning on every textbook,
magazine, newspaper article, and statue that presumes to deal with the
bestial origin of man!

No, we are not descended from apes. Rather, God created man as the
crown of His creation on Day 6. We are a special creation of God, made in
His image, to bring Him glory. What a revolution this truth would make if
our evolutionized culture truly understood it!

The New Answers Book 2

People complain about The New Answers Book. They say that it’s so good at giving short, substantive answers that they want more. Well, we listened! In The New Answers Book 2 you’ll find 31 more great answers to big questions for the Christian life. Many view the original New Answers Book as an essential tool for modern discipleship. Both of these books answer such questions as: Can natural processes explain the origin of life? Can creationists be real scientists? Where did Cain get his wife? Is evolution a religion? and more!

Newsletter

Thank You!

Thank you for signing up to receive email newsletters from Answers in Genesis.

Whoops!

Your newsletter signup did not work out. Please refresh the page and try again.

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus on providing answers to questions about the Bible—particularly the book of Genesis—regarding key issues such as creation, evolution, science, and the age of the earth.